Talk:Lie Kim Hok

Misleading link in first line of article
The first line of the article, and the infobox, both contain links like this: peranakan Chinese

Unfortunately the only reference to peranakan in Chinese Indonesians is a see also to our article Peranakan Chinese (actually a redirect to Peranakan). There is obviously something very confusing and, probably, wrong here, but I'm not sure what. I think there are three possibilities:


 * Peranakan Chinese is synonymous with Chinese Indonesians, and the two articles should be merged.
 * Peranakan Chinese is not synonymous with Chinese Indonesians, and the best target for the link is Chinese Indonesians, in which case the confusing piped link text needs removing from the two links.
 * Peranakan Chinese is not synonymous with Chinese Indonesians, and the best target for the link is Peranakan Chinese, in which case the link target needs changing.

Hopefully an editor who understands the nuances better than I can make the necessary changes. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it rich that someone who does admittedly does not understand the topic area says a link is "misleading". The link to Chinese Indonesians, rather than "peranakan", was deliberate: the peranakan article is about peranakan in general, and seems to focus mostly on Malaysia, whereas Lie grew up in the area that is now Indonesia, and thus socio-political factors which affected him are best explained in the Chinese Indonesian article. The use of the term peranakan is also deliberate: there was no Indonesia during Lie's lifetime, and thus a plain link to Chinese Indonesians would be patently incorrect. They were "ethnic Chinese in the Indies". Ethnic Chinese is a possible alternative link, but the division between totok (immigrants from mainland China) and peranakan was a fairly contentious one at the time, and one which (within their communities) was considered quite important, so identifying Lie as a peranakan better suits the reality as he would have known it than simply "ethnic Chinese". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my comment upset you, but I would say that it is precisely because I don't understand the subject that I can tell you that there is something sub-optimal about that link. I came across this page because it was a featured article, I was curious about the term Peranakan Chinese because I'd never come across it before, and wanted to know what it meant. That surely is precisely what an encyclopedia is for. Unfortunately the target of the link didn't answer that question, instead telling me about another category of person called Chinese Indonesians, which I found confusing. Perhaps that would have been a more accurate description than misleading.


 * Rereading the rest of your response, would it not be better to link to both, as in something like:


 * Lie Kim Hok (1 November 1853 – 6 May 1912) was a Peranakan and Indonesian Chinese teacher, ...


 * I take your point about Indonesia not existing in his lifetime, but I think in general WP tends to regard x from country as being a shorthand for 'x from the area now known as country'. And indeed you could strengthen that point by saying:


 * Lie Kim Hok (1 November 1853 – 6 May 1912) was a Peranakan and Dutch East Indies Chinese teacher, ...


 * -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Peranakan is one of two categories of Chinese (Indonesian/Malaysian), so "Peranakan and Chinese (x)" would be totally redundant. As for the anachronism you're suggesting: please show me a featured article where this holds true. Even the long-stable Japanese occupation of Indonesia has been moved to Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies owing to the anachronism inherent to the title — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I bow to your superior knowledge, but that isn't what the respective articles say. Lets leave aside the anachronism issue for a moment. According to Peranakan, Peranakans are the descendants of people of Chinese ethnicity who moved to the Indonesian archipelago or British Malaya in the 15th & 16th centuries. According to Chinese Indonesians, Chinese Indonesians are the descendants of people of Chinese ethnicity who moved to Indonesia or the former Dutch East Indies colony. So many Peranakans are not Chinese Indonesians because their ancestors moved to Malaya. And many Chinese Indonesians are not Peranakans because their ancestors moved since the 16th century. If that is not correct, then we (as in the WP community) need to revise the articles. If it is correct, it seems to me that having two links for somebody who is both is perfectly reasonable.
 * As for the anachronism issue, I'm not totally convinced. It is, of course, nonsense to talk about the Japanese occupation of Indonesia, because the Japanese invasion occurred in one small window of time during which Indonesia did not exist. But people of Chinese ethnicity have been moving to the-territory-now-known-as-Indonesia for centuries both before and after the creation of Indonesia-the-country. It may be sensible to me to cover that in one article, depending on how much really changed for that Chinese community on independence (I'd guess politically a lot, but culturally not that much; however you certainly have a better view on that than I). If it isn't appropriate to have a single article, then perhaps we need an article (eg) Chinese of the Dutch East Indies, and link to that here instead of Chinese Indonesians. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles' definitions are incorrect. The Chinese Indonesians article has been fixed, as it was unnecessarily constricting in its definition (good point there, as the scope of the article was overly limited), and the peranakan article should have a citation for that date range (immigration continued well after the colonial powers arrived, as did intermingling... as late as the early 20th century Chinese men would keep nyais [concubines], often native women, and their children would be peranakan Chinese; also, Mely G. Tan gives a much more general [and, IMHO, reasonable] definition in "The Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia: Issues of Identity" [in Ethnic Chinese as Southeast Asians which does not give specific years, but rather an identity related to cultural, linguistic, and familial aspects). I suggest reading that and her contribution to the Encyclopedia of Diasporas for a more general overview of the ethnic Chinese.
 * As for little having changed culturally... Contrasting the ethnic Chinese culture (with traditions forcibly maintained under Dutch rule, yet squashed under Suharto's) will be quite an enlightening experience. Perhaps comparing the works of Kwee Tek Hoay and Mira W. or Marga T. would be a good first step. At the bare minimum, the social stratification between peranakan and totok is nowhere near as pronounced as it was in the early 20th century. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sections
The sections are too long; please split the sections up. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, what? Sections are nowhere near too long (compare articles such as Manhattan Project, particularly #Electromagnetic separation) and there is no policy or guideline which gives a hard limit on section length. The reference format here has been used in something like 15 FAs, so there is clearly nothing inherently wrong with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't see 15 FAs with that format. But that's not the problem. The problem is that all the life sections need to be under one main section named "Life". Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  22:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Link to policy or guideline, please? That you have not seen 15 FAs with such a reference format does not mean that they do not exist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a policy, it's for convenience. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The problem is that all the life sections need to be under one main section named "Life"" - You. If it is personal preference, is is not "need to be" in a Wikipedia sense. Hence why I asked for a link to policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's for the convenience of users who want to research Lie's life. A main "Life" section with several subsections will do just that. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As will sections which are obviously about his life, without a life header. "He was born" makes it patently clear that this is biographic information. "He did (x)" as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)